This is the chapter where we talk about security, protection, and police. With freedom as the ultimate goal, what are the necessary foundations that a free society must be built upon? The first step is peace, which is what we talked about last chapter, how a new territory could be acquired and protected from external threats. Once the border is secure the state must then go about establishing security on the inside, which is what we will be talking about today. Currently there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with how our protection and police services are conducted, but I see very little discussion as to what could be offered as a viable alternative. Progressives want to defund the police and reallocate spending towards community services, anarchists want to abolish the police, conservatives want to back the blue but often then find themselves in positions defending what are clear abuses of power. So what’s the solution? If the police cannot be trusted to protect and serve their community then there is something deeply dysfunctional about the system that needs to be corrected. The police need to be a reliable source of government protection, not an additional layer of fear and antagonism. What I am interested in doing is reconceptualizing our political structures from scratch. Regardless of how things are today, how ought our systems operate in the future? What could and should our public protection services look like? Try to lay aside for a moment the norms and standards we have become accustomed to and instead join me in reimagining the role of protection within our communities.
Part #1. What is Protection?
What protection means, in a practical sense, is that the state must have secure control over its territory. This is why having a strong border is the first and foremost task of the sovereign. If you cannot control who is entering and exiting the state, then how can you hope to manage what is occurring inside of it? The state is secure when it maintains a monopoly on coercion, or force, within its territory. The absolute absence of crime is an impossible goal—there will always be a few thieves and murderers in any society—but there should be no organized crime or systematic resistance to state authority. If some mob or cartel holds coercive power within the state, then the citizens can no longer rely upon the laws to be reinforced consistently or effectively. In order for the people to feel safe, the rule of law and power of state authority must be absolute.
But what can the people expect to feel safe from? What is being protected? The traditional libertarian view is based on the non-aggression principle. Essentially, it is the government’s job to intervene only as a retaliatory force. If another person threatens you or harms you or steals from you then this will merit state intervention. However this limited conception of protection still leaves people vulnerable to many other forces which could threaten their livelihood. What if there is a house fire? Or a hurricane? Or if I injure myself and need emergency medical attention? All of these are instances where my life may be in danger and I need someone to intervene on my behalf. Protection means living in a society that protects your body from active threats and harm, not simply punishing people who may seek to do you harm.
In the event of some unforeseen circumstance, I want a government that will use its power to protect me and my possessions to the best of its ability. Police, paramedics, firefighters, and other forms of first responders all fall under this unique category: anyone who may need to use force to violate the rights of one citizen in order to protect the livelihood of another. Think of how emergency vehicles are able to violate traffic laws to reach their destinations more quickly, or a firefighter may need to damage private property in order to save someone’s life. Police are given special powers to search, detain, and question people so they can do their jobs properly. All of these services must be government agencies since they need to have coercive power in order to protect the people. For the rules to be enforced effectively, some special class of citizens must have the right to violate them. This is the proper role of state security.
Part #2. The Guardians
The rest of this chapter will focuse on the role of police specifically, since it seems to be the area that needs the most improvement. No one really has any issue with state services such as firefighters or paramedics. They have one job to do and only one way to do it; put out the fire, or provide medical assistance. Police, on the other hand, are called upon to respond to all sorts of occurrences and can deal with them in a myriad of ways. Their job is to enforce the law. But what sort of laws are they expected to enforce, and through what means?
I’ll be getting into the specifics of rules and regulations next chapter, but a key aspect of this theoretical political system we are designing is the idea that you can have nested layers of regulation. The state may have a libertarian attitude towards drug policy, but there may be certain subsets of communities that ban the use of drugs and alcohol all together. There is no contraction here, the citizens simply have to be aware of where what rules apply and then position themselves accordingly. When talking about the role of police officers I want to focus on the minimal possible requirements; what is the bare minimum that they should be expected to do and why? One of the main problems with our current police system is that officers spend the majority of their time enforcing laws that need not exist in the first place. Recreational drug use, sex work, or cracking open a cold one while you walk down the street are all victimless crimes and it shouldn’t be the job of the state to punish such behaviour. Police involvement in nonviolent crimes provides the opportunity for abuses of power which would not otherwise exist, since they get to pick and choose who they pull over for traffic stops or ticket for public consumption of alcohol. This not only wastes valuable public resources but also diminishes the role of the officer from “protector” to what is essentially a hall monitor.
Police involvement in traffic in particular may become a less salient issue as autonomous vehicles become the norm. You wont be able to get a DUI, speeding, or parking ticket once self driving cars rule the road. This is a good thing, as it will free police officers up from monotonous tasks and force them to focus on their actual duty, which is protecting their community. The proper role of a police officer is to respond to active harm, threats, or thefts. They are to be called upon in an emergency or to deal with a crime that has been committed. When you dial 911 you are looking for help, protection, and security. This is the officer’s primary duty.
Once you get the police out of nonviolent crime and traffic stops, this raises their bar of competency considerably. No longer are we looking for bureaucratic busybodies, but rather an elite force of highly trained individuals prepared to respond to all sorts of emergencies. The role of a police officer should be glorified; they are guardians. I borrow this term from Plato’s “Republic” as it really gets at the crux of what I am trying to describe. Guardians are government agents who are empowered to protect the populace. Like local superheroes. They must be able to take down bad guys, administer medical help, provide psychological support, deescalate tense situations, and get the occasional cat out of a tree. Becoming a guardian would take many years of training across a variety of fields, resulting in a highly coveted, highly paid, and highly respected position. This solution integrates both progressive and conservative demands. Instead of having social workers and police officers who are both equipped to deal with some scenarios and not others, why not combine their roles to create a more well rounded individual who is capable of dealing with any crisis that is thrown at them? Emphasizing quality over quantity also increases competitiveness within the field and makes it easier to replace officers who are abusing their power. If you want to improve quality of service, then the solution is not to defund the police, but rather glorify their role as one that is highly sought after and respected.
The other change to make in the role of guardians is how they occupy their free time. Instead of sitting around on-call when not actively responding to a crime, they should be out in the community, walking or biking the beat. This used to be the role of police officers until they all got outfitted with cars to drive around in, which strips away the interpersonal element. The purpose of community patrols should not be wandering around aimlessly to establish a police presence, but rather actively engaging with and getting to know the community. This is the “service” component. Guardians should spend their free time building relationships, interacting with the people they are responsible for protecting.
This could be something as simple as helping an old lady cross the road or carrying a pregnant woman’s groceries in for her. Mundane tasks like helping someone weed their garden, or playing basketball with local kids after school. The point is not the job itself, but rather establishing a reliable presence in the community that feels familiar and trustworthy. That way, when a guardian shows up to the scene of a robbery, they may already know both the little old lady whose laptop was stolen as well as troubled the teen who took it. This makes conflict management much easier as it reduces the fear and animosity that can otherwise arise between police and the public. Contrast this with the current system where the police service a massive area and spend their free time isolated from the community—there is no sense of familiarity or safety. Both the officer and the citizen perceive the other as something foreign and uncertain. This subsequently leads to mistrust, disobedience, and escalation in police interactions. By making it a priority to focus on developing meaningful relationships within the community, this sense of otherness is reduced. The guardians are no longer outsiders, but rather a firm and friendly fixture of the neighbourhood
Part #3. The Community
This brings us to the final and most ambitious phase of the chapter. I want to completely rework how we conceptualize and integrate government services into our lives, and it all starts with the community centre. In the previous entry I described a target state as one that could arise with the most minimal start-up cost. A protection agency would simply need to set up shop and start selling its services to the surrounding area. All that is required is a secure home base that the guardians can operate out of. This is how I believe we should reconceptualize the role of police stations; as centres of protection within the community.
Imagine that instead of a major city having a few police stations that hundreds of officers operate out of, the stations are broken up into smaller access points and distributed throughout the neighbourhoods. They would occur at regular intervals at about the same frequency as public schools, with one always available within a twenty minute walk from a residential area. The number of officers operating out of each station would be determined by the surrounding population density and crime rates. Guardians from adjacent communities may be called in as backup, but generally stick to dealing with help needed in their immediate vicinity. Breaking up the current norm into smaller dispatch points also improves issues of internal accountability. If you have a problem or feel unsafe engaging with one centre you can head over to next one and request an internal investigation or file a complaint. All of the stations would work to keep the others in check, meaning abuses of power would be more easily identified and dealt with.
Currently, police stations are dense, few, and far between. They act as central dispatch points to entire city, with officers operating out of them but also bringing criminals back to them. People are detained, questioned, and arrested in the same place that citizens must go feel protected. This contrast makes police stations feel inherently cold, hostile, and uninviting. They are the last place a person would want to go if seeking comfort or security. To solve this, simply separate the protection from the punishment. Criminals should be detained, questioned, and processed in a completely separate facility. I’m not going to get into the details of crime and punishment in this chapter, but suffice it to say our current systems of deterrence and rehabilitation could use some improvement. The problem of what to do with criminals is a different issue, today we are focusing on how to protect the populace.
So, instead of police stations, community centres. But what does that look like, what’s the difference? Well, I want you to imagine a pretty brick building, or cluster of buildings, surrounded by public parks and playgrounds, flower gardens and basketball courts, about the size of a city block. The space feels safe, warm, and inviting, acting as a central hub of the community that enables interactions. There is a bulletin board outside so locals can post notices and organize events, pasting up flyers looking for lost pets or advertising garage sales or job opportunities. There is enough space available that people can gather, play, and relax at their leisure. Because the guardians operate out of the community centre, the surrounding area is incredibly safe; this is a place where kids could hang out after school without needing adult supervision. On the weekends maybe a farmers market pops up, or people get together to do yoga at sunrise, all the conventional stuff you would expect to see in a public park.
The difference is that this community centre would be a one stop shop for all government services. Not only is the property providing public parks and playgrounds, but the buildings nested inside would provide the basis of all necessary social services. Instead of having libraries, homeless shelters, health clinics, adoption agencies, unemployment offices, and psychological services spread throughout the city, all of these resources would be folded in to one central access point. Kind of like the role the church would have played in medieval Europe. If you need help, information, or assistance of any sort, you can likely find it here. The centre acts as a safe haven within the community.
This isn’t how anyone thinks of social services traditionally, but once you get the idea in your head it’s kind of intoxicating. The community centre would have a reception area which issues public documents and ID as well as providing general directions and information. There would be a soup kitchen and a place to spend the night as well as a medic and psychologist available on site. There would be a place to sit inside with free internet and computers (all that is needed for a modern day library). Given that the centres would only be servicing communities of a few thousand, rather than a few hundred thousand, it would only require a dozen staff members or so to manage all of these services. Of course, this would vary depending upon the needs and density of the surrounding community, but a small, efficiently run centre could get by on a receptionist, medic, psychologist, and housekeeper with the guardians providing the rest of the support where needed.
Now, you may insist that all of these community services go against the ideals of libertarianism—after all, we want a small and efficiently run government trimmed of all unnecessary expense. So how can I suggest a system that provides parks and soup kitchens? Well, this goes back to the idea of protection that I talked about earlier. I don’t just want protection from others, but any active threat which may do me harm. In some instances that may mean people need a safe place to spend the night, or a solid meal in their stomach. I have nothing against the idea of a social safety net, but I do take issue with people who use that net as a hammock. Those who get comfortable mooching off of the system long after it has helped them out of a tough spot.
Luckily, there’s an easy solution to this problem: the community centre provides its services for free with an understanding that the citizens will pay for the cost after the fact. Either through their own money, or a sponsor, or an act of service to the station. Say for some reason you find yourself homeless, penniless, and needing a safe place to stay for the night. The community centre would provide you with a hot meal, warm shower, and place to sleep. But the next morning you would need to pay it forward by participating in the upkeep of the centre in exchange for the services you have used. Maybe you’d be asked to weed the vegetable garden or sweep the floors or peel some potatoes. The point is that there needs to be an acknowledgement of the value that was provided to you which is then repaid by your own labour. This ensures that people do not develop a sense of entitlement. The centre is there to protect you, yes, but it will not take care of you in perpetuity.
People that are severely mentally ill, disabled, drug addicted, or otherwise incapable of caring for themselves will need an alternative to the overnight solution. If someone needs serious help and intervention then it would be the task of the centre to connect them with a private charity or organization which is better tailored to suit their needs. The government could have its own private charity that works for profit, rehabilitating citizens and charging them after the fact for their services, but ultimately such matters should be left to the free market. I’ll get more into the specifics of citizenship, rights, and responsibilities in the next chapter.
For now, this is my vision as to how we could make meaningful changes to the roles of protection and police within our communities. A little unconventional, maybe, but I find it incredibly inspiring. I love the idea of having a central hub where you know you can go to be safe and engage with your community. Having a designated space that facilitates local interactions is incredibly important and something we are sorely lacking in modern times. Moreover, simplifying and refining the role of police as public protectors rather than arbitrary rule enforcers would do a world of good. Many of our problems stem from outdated laws and institutions and we wont see meaningful change in our systems until we get to the root of the issue. So join me next time where I discuss rules, regulations, and what it means to be a citizen.
Continue to Part 9: Rights & Responsibilities
Wonderland is a free publication that outlines a philosophy and political vision for the 22nd century. To support my work and receive updates on new posts, sign up for a free or paid subscription.
1.8 Protection & Police